Acosta polled voters. Who is responsible for Stockton's ills? Respondents blamed everybody: city leaders past and present, and the state of California.

"But who can they take their frustrations out on?" Acosta asked. "The people on the ballot."

This week, I canvassed a neighborhood south of Charter Way, asking residents who caused Stockton's woes.

"I say the mayor," said South California Street resident John Gilbreath. "She's the head honcho, isn't she?"

"I really don't know," said Angelina Ceno.

"The mayor," said Ralph Felix. "Bankruptcy, a lot of crime, everything. She's the head of the city."

Felix added: "The first murder this year was right down the street. Right by that tree."

Hence a disconnect. A City Hall insider would probably say Stockton's insolvency is complex and rooted as far back as the 1990s; the current council bears little responsibility for it; its members enacted tough reforms.

Ordinary residents of crime-plagued neighborhoods, for their part, look out their windows, see bullets going by, lose family, friends or property and chafe at slow police response times. To them, unsafe streets equates to government failure.

Silva, who was raised in a Kelley Drive duplex, understood this mindset.

To counter Johnston's fundraising advantage, he and his campaign staff went door to door. In addition to mailers, he used social media and frequent event appearances.

"What worked for me is just walking and talking," Silva said. "I walked and met people from all over the city. People were saying they're sort of embarrassed (by Stockton's dismal standing). They don't feel safe."

"At the very end, when we put out the plan to put more cops the street, we gave an idea of what we need to do for the next four years," said Silva's campaign manager, Lee Neves. "That is also something Mayor Johnston didn't do."

Silva's "common sense plan to restore Stockton" features no white paper, no analysis and recommendations, no proposed panel of staff or stakeholders and a sketchy funding source. It is mainly three goals on a mailer.

» Bust and prosecute lower-level crimes: "zero tolerance."

» Get banks to allow police to set up mini-offices in foreclosed homes.

» Recruit new cops "for a fraction of our current costs."

Funding source: a sales tax increase.

A skeptic would say these back-of-the-napkin goals are simply unrealistic.

Stockton is broke. It lacks funding for new cops, let alone zero tolerance law enforcement. The district attorney's prosecutors have been slashed.

The City Attorney's Office, which prosecutes misdemeanors in some cities, lacks staff for a new mission.

Voter-approved tax increases are a maybe. Even if a tax to fund more cops were approved, though, the jail is full.

How banks will view an (admittedly creative) request to set up police mini-stations in foreclosures is anybody's guess. Police union reaction to cops paid a "fraction" is more predictable.

Silva's proposed tax also neglects to factor in Stockton's bankruptcy. The city owes creditors hundreds of millions. They'll claim any large tax revenue.

Silva told a Sacramento TV news station he is consulting with attorneys over that little snag. This sounds like ready, fire, aim.

The smart play is to optimize existing law enforcement until the city emerges from bankruptcy. That is what the Marshall Plan seeks to do, albeit slowly. Too slowly, evidently.

With due respect to Silva, I believe Johnston deserved to be re-elected.

On the other hand, this is the wrong time to dismiss new approaches out of hand. Silva deserves a chance to surprise. He's done it once already.